Seeking Research (or Personal Experience) that is Anti-Homeschool - Page 8

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by ollyoxenfree 

SaveTheWild, I'm glad that it's helpful.

At the risk of beating a dead horse, there are are real learning benefits to collaborative learning that seem to get overlooked in the discussion, and not just social benefits. A student can learn more and learn it better by exploring a subject with other students in a group problem-solving or project. It's an active learning process. They have to review information together, consider different angles, resolve contradictions, and understand the material well enough that explain things to their group mates. Individual contributions, with different skills and new ideas, can help extend the knowledge base of the other group members. A group can tackle larger and more complex problems than an individual learner because more methods and solutions can be tried. The individual learner can walk away from the group with more knowledge, more experience and a greater skill set.

This is an example, imo, of where the scope needs to be narrowed. I never, in all my years of public school, was involved in a group effort that worked this way - not once. The "best" student (or the student who was perceived by the rest of the group as being the "best" student) or one of the really take charge kids took over, and there was rarely any collaboration involved. The vast majority of the "group" projects I saw were 95% one student's work, and then the rest of the names went on it. (And, I'm not saying this out of bitterness, because it certainly wasn't my work.) There wasn't much to learn, and there wasn't much extension of knowledge going on. DS1, otoh, seems to have mostly found groups where there's a lot of back and forth and dialogue, and he'd probably agree with you. But, "collaborative learning" only works when a group dynamic exists, and there's actual collaboration going on. IME, developing that takes more than putting people/kids into a group and assigning a project.

An excellent example of the benefits of group learning is right here at MDC. Anyone who posts about a situation looking for comments or anyone who contributes to a thread with their insight, knowledge or advice ought to agree that collaboration has great value. Otherwise why bother? Individual members post about a situation. Other members chime in with different perspectives and possible solutions. Some are helpful. (Some are not.) The OP benefits from the discussion. People with similar problems benefit. People who have never encountered the situation may be better prepared if it happens to them. At its best, this community is a great example of a collaborative learning process.  

I have to agree. I love communities like this - online. Groups don't work for me in the real world, and never have...and I wasted a lot of time and heartache on trying to navigate them in school. All the educational theories in the world mean nothing if they don't apply to the student in question. (And, yes - I freely admit that I'm an oddball and that I have issues that interfered with the educational approach taken in public school...but that doesn't change the fact that all the great ideas they had simply didn't work for me.)

[Tjej]

I agree with the theory behind the "group work is important" angle, but in my real-life experience it was terrible in school.  All the way through - HS and college bring back especially negative memories.  I have always been a good employee and great with co-workers.  I'm kind and good at listening and giving feedback.  Working together on the job is so very different.  Group work in school was SOOO an exercise in torture...   Well, I suppose the one thing I did learn from it is how to reign in my angst at governmental bureaucracy and just wait, persevere, wait...

It is interesting for me as a rising homeschooler (we'll start K this fall) to hear the perspective of moms who have done both.  I am pretty sure I will be one of them someday! 

Tjej

Edited by Tjej - 7/7/11 at 8:37pm

[ramama]

I think there are many types of group work.  Busy work in a group setting is going to be terrible.  I had a lot of teachers who used group work to mask their laziness.  I've had other teachers, however, that took the time to make group work fun and exciting.  Sure, if a teacher says "work in a group to answer these questions on the book you've been reading" (which at least half the members of the group were guaranteed NOT to have read, but still got group credit.  Grrr.), that's just laziness and a chance for the teacher to be "off duty" for a bit.  I do remember, though, one group assignment that was created to facilitate an understanding of the feudal system, and was basically a role-playing game.  The teacher put a lot of effort into it, and it was FUN.  And I still have a pretty good understanding of the feudal system LOL.  So, yeah, I remember a lot of the crappy kind of group work, where I carried a large part of the load, and always was designated the "writer" because of my neat handwriting.  But there have been a lot of enriching assignments for me too.

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by ramama 

I think there are many types of group work.  Busy work in a group setting is going to be terrible.  I had a lot of teachers who used group work to mask their laziness.  I've had other teachers, however, that took the time to make group work fun and exciting.  Sure, if a teacher says "work in a group to answer these questions on the book you've been reading" (which at least half the members of the group were guaranteed NOT to have read, but still got group credit.  Grrr.), that's just laziness and a chance for the teacher to be "off duty" for a bit.  I do remember, though, one group assignment that was created to facilitate an understanding of the feudal system, and was basically a role-playing game.  The teacher put a lot of effort into it, and it was FUN.  And I still have a pretty good understanding of the feudal system LOL.  So, yeah, I remember a lot of the crappy kind of group work, where I carried a large part of the load, and always was designated the "writer" because of my neat handwriting.  But there have been a lot of enriching assignments for me too.

LOL...I found the "fun" and "enriching" group work the worst. If I knew it was coming, I cut class...

[ollyoxenfree]

I think there is a good discussion to be had about collaborative learning. It probably deserves its own thread. There's lots to explore - how to create a positive collaborative learning environment, how to ensure individual accountability, how to facilitate healthy group dynamics, tactics to recover when a group isn't working out, what structure to put in place to support learners, how to assess and improve on the process....

It occurs to me that technology may provide some innovative solutions. With an on-line record, it's fairly easy to monitor who participates, how often, the quality of their contributions, which group members are understanding the material, who is trying to move the work forward and who is simply provoking trouble and/or distracting the other members of the group with irrelevant, unhelpful tangents.

[Linda on the move]

Originally Posted by frugalmum 

The main thing to bear in mind when reading about HS vs. school comparisons is that homeschoolers are held to a much higher standard. 

Homeschoolers aren't held to a standard at all in most places. Very few states require homeschoolers take any standardized test. The few that do have an option for a portfolio review instead. There is no oversight.

Originally Posted by ameliabedelia 

In fact, I would say most people who homeschool don't have access to a school like that, since I would guess that most public schools aren't like that and many people who homeschool can't afford private school. .....

Really I think what it boils down to is that a school experience could be good, bad or average and a homeschool experience could be good, bad or average.  The major difference is that as a parent, I have a lot more control over my child's homeschool experience than I would over their school experience. 

My kids attended a very good public school before starting at the private school, and I have mixed feeling about the private school for my typically developing child. There were some things about being in a big public school that were wonderful for her, opportunities that can't be matched at a small school. There's a trade off for her.

I think the view that a lot of homeschoolers have of public school is VERY jaded and doesn't reflect the reality of even their own local school because they people they see all the time and talk to the most are the ones for whom the school wasn't a good match. The same school can be a very different experience for different kids, and if you only have contact with families who had one kind of experience, you aren't going to get the big picture.

As far as the expense of private school, most of the families at my DDs' school aren't rich, and having kids at the school is a sacrifice. I've heard the same argument about homeschooling, that it's expensive because it requires having a SAHP for years and years. The truth is that many families make choices to make a certain kind of education available for their kids, and for some families that's mom getting a job to pay for an excellent school, and in some families that's mom not getting a job so she can be home with the children. Most homeschooling moms I know didn't work (or worked very, very little) but most the private school moms I know work. It's a different choice, in both cases based on what they believe is very best for their children.

When we were in the middle of this move last year, DH's company temporarily housed us in an apartment oddly close the best public highschool and middle school in the city, and I noticed the number of families living in the complex with teens, many of them immigrant families. That was there way of getting their kids into what they saw as best educational option for them. Houses in that area start at around 400K, but apartments are affordable. Different families do different things make a good education happen for their kids. But you are right, a lot of homeschool families couldn't continue to live in a house and have a SAHM and have any other decent option.

I'm not saying that homeschool moms should get jobs or sell their houses or do anything any different than they are, just that they have the same choices as every body else. They are making choices based on what they feel is best. Every body is making choices, and just because someone else is making a different choice, doesn't mean it's easier for them a less of a sacrifice or that you got fewer options.

I agree that a school experience can be good or bad, and a homeschooling experience can be good or bad. But I see more possible downsides of homeschooling that you do. Some of them because my family experienced them, and some of them just from watching other families. I think there is a certain level of dishonesty in the homeschooling community because so many homeschoolers feel on the defense all the time, they don't want to own the down sides.

Another downside that I've noticed reading this thread is that a homeschooled child is limited by their parents beliefs and values. Take the collaborative learning issue, if a homeschool parent doesn't value it and therefore doesn't make it happen, the child will just not have those experiences -- year after year. Some teachers handle it better than others, but a child who is getting a different teacher every year has a much better chance of having nice collaborative experience than a child who is homeschooled by someone who doesn't see the point of it. You could substitute ANY issue -- playing around with art supplies, using math manipulatives, etc. -- a homeschooled kid is getting the exact same set of learning biases every single year.

Also, a homeschooled child is really stuck in their birth order. The oldest is the oldest all day, every day. At school, they are just one of a group peers.

I think a good question for parents to ask is "Of the options I have, which is the best for my child at this time?"  But to figure that out, it seems to me it would be easier if one could evaluate the pluses and minuses of each option and then guess how those would play out for a specific child.

I also think it's better to based our choices on our kids, rather than on our own experiences that we haven't gotten over. Our kids aren't us and the school options aren't the same as ours.

[serenbat]

Homeschoolers aren't held to a standard at all in most places. Very few states require homeschoolers take any standardized test. The few that do have an option for a portfolio review instead. There is no oversight.

inaccurate

http://www.hslda.org/laws/default.asp        more states than none DO require testing and I am red and have NO opt-out---I have lots of oversight

http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000010/200410250.asp

the same information can be found on other sites as well

and the information on PS testing can also be found-one can compare (as well as the oversight)

[Linda on the move]

The link you gave doesn't say which states require testing, and it clearly shows that most states have little to no oversight. For the most part staying legal requires filling out a one time form and keeping records that no one looks at.

A few states do have more oversight, but even according to your link, they are the exception.

I'm not saying thats a good thing or a bad thing, just that most home schoolers aren't held to a standard.

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by Linda on the move 

As far as the expense of private school, most of the families at my DDs' school aren't rich, and having kids at the school is a sacrifice. I've heard the same argument about homeschooling, that it's expensive because it requires having a SAHP for years and years. The truth is that many families make choices to make a certain kind of education available for their kids, and for some families that's mom getting a job to pay for an excellent school, and in some families that's mom not getting a job so she can be home with the children. Most homeschooling moms I know didn't work (or worked very, very little) but most the private school moms I know work. It's a different choice, in both cases based on what they believe is very best for their children.

When we were in the middle of this move last year, DH's company temporarily housed us in an apartment oddly close the best public highschool and middle school in the city, and I noticed the number of families living in the complex with teens, many of them immigrant families. That was there way of getting their kids into what they saw as best educational option for them. Houses in that area start at around 400K, but apartments are affordable. Different families do different things make a good education happen for their kids. But you are right, a lot of homeschool families couldn't continue to live in a house and have a SAHM and have any other decent option.

I'm not saying that homeschool moms should get jobs or sell their houses or do anything any different than they are, just that they have the same choices as every body else. They are making choices based on what they feel is best. Every body is making choices, and just because someone else is making a different choice, doesn't mean it's easier for them a less of a sacrifice or that you got fewer options.

I completely agree with all of this. From my standpoint, the parents who work to pay for private school are actually making the bigger sacrifice...but that's because I've done the WOHM thing, and I hated it. So, from my perspective, it's a huge, huge sacrifice to do that for your child. Someone else may see it differently.

Another downside that I've noticed reading this thread is that a homeschooled child is limited by their parents beliefs and values. Take the collaborative learning issue, if a homeschool parent doesn't value it and therefore doesn't make it happen, the child will just not have those experiences -- year after year. Some teachers handle it better than others, but a child who is getting a different teacher every year has a much better chance of having nice collaborative experience than a child who is homeschooled by someone who doesn't see the point of it. You could substitute ANY issue -- playing around with art supplies, using math manipulatives, etc. -- a homeschooled kid is getting the exact same set of learning biases every single year.

I find this to be an interesting view, but it hasn't been my experience, so far. The women who run the ecology programs my kids take all have a slightly different style. The two dance teachers they've worked with have different styles. The instructor at rock climbing had yet another style. I'm pretty sure the instructor at this summer's pottery camp will have yet another approach, and so did the "science adventures" teacher. DD1's ballet teacher regularly has them work together, mostly in pairs, but sometimes in small groups, to choreograph small dance sequences. The science teacher did a lot of group discussion. I hated group work, but group work isn't the only way to do collaborative learning, and just because I hated it, doesn't mean my kids are going to hate it.  So far, at least, my kids have had really good group experiences with only very minor blips (a homeschool friend who considered dd1 his "girlfriend" and got really mad when his mom explained that dd1 didn't see it that way, etc.). By the time I was dd1's age, I was already becoming anxious about going to school every day, because of how out and out mean the other kids could be (eg. the boy in my 2nd grade class who stepped in dog poop at lunch and then plunked his shoe on my sandwich).

Sure - my kids have only one main teacher, and it's the same teacher every years. But, I get input from other homeschooling moms, too, and actively look for suggestions. And, I'm not their only teacher (as i say, so far, there's been dance teachers, a climbing instructor, Tae Kwon Do instructors, ecology programs, science class, etc.). I'm not teaching me. I'm teaching my kids, who are very different, so I have to take that into account. I mean...dd1 wants to grow up to work with spiders, in the field and in the lab. I'm a fairly serious arachnaphobe! So...I spend a lot of time looking at large, gruesome, close up pictures of spider faces and discussing the various features with dd1. It's not about me. Likewise, I look into crafts that the kids can do, and what resources are available to learn math, and what books they might like.

Also, a homeschooled child is really stuck in their birth order. The oldest is the oldest all day, every day. At school, they are just one of a group peers.

That also makes little sense to me. Yes. I was "stuck" in my position as middle child at home. And, I was "stuck" in my place in the pecking order at school, just like everyone else. "Middle child" was a lot more comfortable than "misfit", yk? What do you see as the downsides to being stuck in one's birth order?

I think a good question for parents to ask is "Of the options I have, which is the best for my child at this time?"  But to figure that out, it seems to me it would be easier if one could evaluate the pluses and minuses of each option and then guess how those would play out for a specific child.

I can't imagine doing it any other way. We re-evaluate about homeschooling every year.

I also think it's better to based our choices on our kids, rather than on our own experiences that we haven't gotten over. Our kids aren't us and the school options aren't the same as ours.

Well, my experiences obviously shape all my decisions, just as they do with anybody else. But, my experiences with ds1 in public school speak more loudly to me than my own experiences do. And, dd1's temperament was the original thing that caused us to consider homeschooling. I do have to admit that I'll be quite relieved if homeschooling works out for them straight through to high school, because my lifetime total of 26 years of dealing with public schools is more than enough for me (I think I was almost as relieved when ds1 walked out of school for the last time as I was when I did the same!). But, if school seems to be the right choice for them at a later date, then that's what we'll do. I don't make my choices on either my experiences or my children. I base them on both.

[Linda on the move]

StormBride "The women who run the ecology programs my kids take all have a slightly different style. The two dance teachers they've worked with have different styles. The instructor at rock climbing had yet another style. I'm pretty sure the instructor at this summer's pottery camp will have yet another approach, and so did the "science adventures" teacher."

I think you sound like a really wonderful homeschool mom and that it sounds like your kids are doing lots of cool things.

Although I do see some downsides of homeschooling, I also see that it works well for many kids for at least part of their education. I'm really not completely negative on the subject, even though my posts on this thread might be coming across that way.

The downsides of being stuck in one's birth order are generally small things -- such as the youngest just always sliding on things and not having as much expected of them at the same ages, and sometimes therefore not expecting as much of themselves. At school, you see what other kids your age are doing and what is expected of them. As a larger problem, which I think is rare, some homeschool parents get hyper focused on what is going on with their oldest and then the younger ones are just along for the ride, really not getting the same quality of education that the older child got.

It's a small issue, and one that can easily be avoided by just being an aware parent, and not a reason to decide to send kids to school.

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by Linda on the move 

StormBride "The women who run the ecology programs my kids take all have a slightly different style. The two dance teachers they've worked with have different styles. The instructor at rock climbing had yet another style. I'm pretty sure the instructor at this summer's pottery camp will have yet another approach, and so did the "science adventures" teacher."

I think you sound like a really wonderful homeschool mom and that it sounds like your kids are doing lots of cool things.

Although I do see some downsides of homeschooling, I also see that it works well for many kids for at least part of their education. I'm really not completely negative on the subject, even though my posts on this thread might be coming across that way.

I do realize that. I get the feeling you're more pointing out/playing up the negatives, because you feel that they get glossed over a lot. I can understand that. I'm very lucky in where I live. We have a large homeschooling community, lots of options about how we want to homeschool, and all kinds of resources to help us with that. I do realize that not everywhere is like that. The kids do get to do lots of cool things. DD1 is ending up her summer this year with a three half-day camp on surviving in the wilderness. It's great to be able to get her into such things, yk?

The downsides of being stuck in one's birth order are generally small things -- such as the youngest just always sliding on things and not having as much expected of them at the same ages, and sometimes therefore not expecting as much of themselves. At school, you see what other kids your age are doing and what is expected of them. As a larger problem, which I think is rare, some homeschool parents get hyper focused on what is going on with their oldest and then the younger ones are just along for the ride, really not getting the same quality of education that the older child got.

It's a small issue, and one that can easily be avoided by just being an aware parent, and not a reason to decide to send kids to school.

Ah. Gotcha. That makes sense. I do see dd1 getting more tasks than the others. Right now, that's because she's simply capable of more, but I will have to watch myself when it comes to thinking the others, especially the "baby", are too young to do the same when they're really not.

[ameliabedelia]

Homeschoolers aren't held to a standard at all in most places. Very few states require homeschoolers take any standardized test. The few that do have an option for a portfolio review instead. There is no oversight.

When I read this, the original statement about homeschoolers being held to higher standards I took it to mean that they are held to higher standards by "societal pressure" and by "themselves"...not in a legal sense.   And, I think this is very true.  In any school there will be kids who are "behind".  There will be kids who just coast along.  There will be kids who get C's and sometimes D's on tests, yet keep moving foreword.   Yet i think with most homeschoolers, they don't move their child foreword until they understand the material at "A" level.   If my kids get something wrong on a test or worksheet or quiz or activity, we go over it and correct it and I make sure they understand. We don't just more foreword.

When we were in the middle of this move last year, DH's company temporarily housed us in an apartment oddly close the best public highschool and middle school in the city, and I noticed the number of families living in the complex with teens, many of them immigrant families. That was there way of getting their kids into what they saw as best educational option for them. Houses in that area start at around 400K, but apartments are affordable. Different families do different things make a good education happen for their kids. But you are right, a lot of homeschool families couldn't continue to live in a house and have a SAHM and have any other decent option.

I'm not saying that homeschool moms should get jobs or sell their houses or do anything any different than they are, just that they have the same choices as every body else. They are making choices based on what they feel is best. Every body is making choices, and just because someone else is making a different choice, doesn't mean it's easier for them a less of a sacrifice or that you got fewer options.

Well, this doesn't hold true for every family of course, but my general experience is that homeschoolers on avg. have larger families than those who send their kids to private school.  Of course there are many 1 or 2 kid homeschooled families, and I'm sure a few private school families with 4+ kids (but I bet that is less common).   Working to send 2 kids (possibly 3) to private school is quite different than working to send 4 or 5 kids to private school, or working to send 3 kids to private school and having 2 little kids in daycare, yk.  For some families. having mom work and sending the kids to private school may not be an option due to the number of kids or the presence of very young children in the home, etc.   I know several homeschooled families who did private school for the first 1-2 kids/few years but by the time the 3rd one got to be school age it was just too expensive and they pulled everyone out to homeschool.

[Cavy]

All of the HS people (adults) I know are striking underachievers compared to their parents (both in terms of career prestige (at least before parents started to HS) or university level achievements.  It took me a while but I realised some strong reasons why this has happened -- only it need not happen, which is why I'm braving a post.

I think what can often happen in home-school environments (I observe this among all of my many many friends and family who HS) is:

The HSing parents give up a lot (wealth & prestige wise) and become quite unmaterialistic & not bothered about how important they are in society.  Fine (I'm anti-stuff too), but...

The HSing parents become a huge influence on their DC's values, not just biggest, but HUGE (I know some see this as a huge plus of HS)

So the HS'd offspring strongly absorb the parent's anti-materialistic values, unlike most their peers; the HSd offspring end up with very unconventional values, especially about wealth and social status (doesn't have to be bad, but...)

The HSing parents also repeatedly and strongly and with virually no exceptions criticise conventional education; the HSd offspring get a very strong message that conventional education is terribly unpleasant, that conventional qualifications are worthless, the exams are MickeyMouse, the Institutions are soul-destroying and horrid (etc.)

On that note, the HS'd offspring are not Institutionalised anywhere like as much as regular school'd children; they aren't ready to put up with it.

Furthermore, so strongly influenced by their parents and away (mostly) from child-dominant environments, the HS'd people are mature for their years.  They are the least likely to go to University just to have a good social life (get drunk every weekend), it's not how they are. (Nor was I a party-girl, but I did value money, degrees and could put up with being Institutionalised).

So, the HS'd adult walks into University settings and they find the Institutionalness of it suffocating.

On top of that, they don't care about money, prestige or partying.

And they KNOW the exams and qualifications are stupid.

So why bother to go to College & put up with the rubbish aspects (Institutionalness), if you don't want to party/get rich/look good or get a piece of paper that will impress your peers and possible employers? Love of learning isn't going to be enough to finish a degree in most cases, is it?  Never mind get a Master's or PhD (most, maybe all the HSing parents I know have a Masters or PhD in something).

So the HS'd offspring end up with no Uni degree at all.

Do you see what I mean, HSing parents don't HAVE to HS in those ways I list, but the ones I know all strongly do.  And it has an unexpected kick in the tail.

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by Cavy 

All of the HS people (adults) I know are striking underachievers compared to their parents (both in terms of career prestige (at least before parents started to HS) or university level achievements.  It took me a while but I realised some strong reasons why this has happened -- only it need not happen, which is why I'm braving a post.

I think what can often happen in home-school environments (I observe this among all of my many many friends and family who HS) is:

The HSing parents give up a lot (wealth & prestige wise) and become quite unmaterialistic & not bothered about how important they are in society.  Fine (I'm anti-stuff too), but...

The HSing parents become a huge influence on their DC's values, not just biggest, but HUGE (I know some see this as a huge plus of HS)

So the HS'd offspring strongly absorb the parent's anti-materialistic values, unlike most their peers; the HSd offspring end up with very unconventional values, especially about wealth and social status (doesn't have to be bad, but...)

The HSing parents also repeatedly and strongly and with virually no exceptions criticise conventional education; the HSd offspring get a very strong message that conventional education is terribly unpleasant, that conventional qualifications are worthless, the exams are MickeyMouse, the Institutions are soul-destroying and horrid (etc.)

On that note, the HS'd offspring are not Institutionalised anywhere like as much as regular school'd children; they aren't ready to put up with it.

Furthermore, so strongly influenced by their parents and away (mostly) from child-dominant environments, the HS'd people are mature for their years.  They are the least likely to go to University just to have a good social life (get drunk every weekend), it's not how they are. (Nor was I a party-girl, but I did value money, degrees and could put up with being Institutionalised).

So, the HS'd adult walks into University settings and they find the Institutionalness of it suffocating.

On top of that, they don't care about money, prestige or partying.

And they KNOW the exams and qualifications are stupid.

So why bother to go to College & put up with the rubbish aspects (Institutionalness), if you don't want to party/get rich/look good or get a piece of paper that will impress your peers and possible employers? Love of learning isn't going to be enough to finish a degree in most cases, is it?  Never mind get a Master's or PhD (most, maybe all the HSing parents I know have a Masters or PhD in something).

So the HS'd offspring end up with no Uni degree at all.

Do you see what I mean, HSing parents don't HAVE to HS in those ways I list, but the ones I know all strongly do.  And it has an unexpected kick in the tail.

I'm a little confused by your post, because I honestly can't tell if you think this is a positive or a negative.

In any case...the only person in my family, in three generations, to get a degree is my mom. (She got hers, because she was facing a failing marriage due to alcoholism, and wanted some credentials that would enable her to actually support us kids, keep the house, etc. if they split up.) She didn't care about that stuff. I don't care about that stuff. And, we were all public-schooled. I don't give a damn if my kids are "underachievers" in terms of career prestige (a concept that actually makes my head hurt) or university level achievements. If they want degrees, high profile careers, etc., that's great. If they don't, that's great, too.  I get the feeling you think this is a negative of homeschooling (although, as I say, I'm not 100% sure from your post), but I don't see it that way. DD1 wants to be an arachnologist. She may change her mind, of course, but she's had her heart set on it for at least three years now. If that's the route she chooses, then she'll need to go to university and I'll make sure she knows that.

I just don't see how being an "underachiever", especially due to not valuing that kind of achievement in the first place, is a negative of homeschooling. If my children value higher eduation or making their way up the career ladder, then I assume they'll pursue those interests. If they don't, they won't...

[ollyoxenfree]

Originally Posted by Cavy 

All of the HS people (adults) I know are striking underachievers compared to their parents (both in terms of career prestige (at least before parents started to HS) or university level achievements.  It took me a while but I realised some strong reasons why this has happened -- only it need not happen, which is why I'm braving a post.

That's an interesting observation. It would be an interesting study. Rather than comparing homeschoolers to conventional schoolers, do a longitudinal study comparing their eventual educational outcomes, careers and socio-economic status to their parents' status. Hmm... you could probably add in health (physical and mental) and life span too, since there's an argument that they have placed a higher priority on self-actualization and personal happiness than on degrees, job status and income.

[ameliabedelia]

All of the HS people (adults) I know are striking underachievers compared to their parents (both in terms of career prestige (at least before parents started to HS) or university level achievements.  It took me a while but I realised some strong reasons why this has happened -- only it need not happen, which is why I'm braving a post.

I'm curious how many homeschool adults you know and how old they are?  I generally don't put much stock in statements like "all of the x people I know are y" unless the person speaking knows a large number of x people.

Homeschooling used to be a lot less popular 20 or even 10 years ago than is now, so I would guess the number of homeschooled adults is pretty small.  I don't think I even really remember hearing about it until the 90's.   I only know 2 homeschooled adults (both in their early or mid 20's).  One does have a college degree, (I think she was only homeschoooled from middle school on) and the other does not have a college degree, but she does have a certificate from a floral school (and if she hadn't been homeschooled, she probably wouldn't have even graduated from high school).  I know four other families who have homeschooled children who are currently in college.

Also, 20 years ago, homeschooling was even more "fringe" and "alternative", so I would bet that people who chose it were very independent thinkers and generally less likely to follow the crowd.  That doesn't mean all homeschoolers today are like that. Homeschooling is much more accepted and "normal" now. It's still alternative, but not nearly as much so as it was when the currently homeschooled adults were children.  In fact, I would be willing to bet that today's homeschooled children have a much different experience than those who started at the beginning of the movement.   Now, there are lots of groups, classes, coops,  sports teams, art/music/theatre groups all geared solely towards homeschoolers.  Plus, most homeschooled children know lots of other homeschooled children. It's not as "alternative" or "fringe" as it used to be, which means it isn't only the really "independent, free-thinking, shun societal values" people who do it.

I just don't see how being an "underachiever", especially due to not valuing that kind of achievement in the first place, is a negative of homeschooling. If my children value higher eduation or making their way up the career ladder, then I assume they'll pursue those interests. If they don't, they won't...

Yes, I agree with this too.   Isn't part of the value of homeschooling is giving children the ability and strength to pursue that which interests them.  I assume my children are smart enough to realize that if  certain field that requires instituionalized schooling interests them, they will pursue that.  If it doesn't, they won't.

[serenbat]

Also, 20 years ago, homeschooling was even more "fringe" and "alternative",

not at all in my area - MANY programs were just for HSers (at local museums, science centers, etc- with waiting lists to get in) - many opportunities- large HS groups-no way "fringe"

I know over two dozen (from 20+ years ago) - my DD graduated college and is in her late-20's (had a full paid scholarship and had attended college classes prior to 18)--------all I know did attend and almost all graduated

none I knew were "underachiever" all over achievers in most ways

[Cavy]

Postive or Negative?: Truth is, I don't know!  It's up to individuals to say if they are satisfied with their life paths.  I guess, as an ex-academic myself (I have a PhD) I think it's a shame when I know a youth (age 18-25ish) who is obviously very bright with an excellent critical mind and who I know has potential to  contribute highly to any field they chose to enter, especially at a professional level, but they don't even manage to complete a Bachelor's degree, never mind go onto PostGrad work (like their parents did).

No not a large sample, admittedly -- includes people who reached age 18 between 1989 & 2008; none of them were unschool'd by the way, so not very alternative parents; the parents themselves had followed quite conventional paths in education (as high achievers thru Uni) and early career paths.  It will be very interesting to see how the 16 or so HS kids I know now under 18 do in tertiary education.  Most, maybe all their parents have at least two Uni degrees between them, Masters & PhDs and working in Universities or schools is common among the parents, too.  Many were extremely highly paid and prestigious in their career at one point.  Their children so far seem to turn out very very different.  Some might say that's a good thing.  I dunno, I don't think highly educated and high achieving has to mean turning into a jerk).

imho, HSers take a risk by (in their children's hearing) sharply criticising conventional education, & qualifications.

[Linda on the move]

I've seen what Cavy is talking about. I don't think it's universal, but it does happen.

As far as the self-actualization VS material success thing, I want my kids to be middle class. I want them to be able to provide themselves and their children with a decent place to live, reliable transportation, dental care, etc. For most people, there's a certain amount of playing the game and following the rules to get there. Pretty much every job has aspects that one isn't crazy about and/or people that one doesn't like; letting that stop one from getting where they want to be or doing what they to is foolish and short sighted. To get where you want to be, sometimes you need to jump through a few hoops. While there are plenty of examples of people who went to school who never caught on to that, I can really see how some attitudes in the homeschooling community  make it harder for *some* kids to get there. It doesn't have to be that way. It's really about awareness of the parent's part.

And it is a pity to see a young adult with real potential to do something interesting and contribute to society in some way who seems limited by their parents attitudes. Hopefully, they will eventually get past their parents' limitations.

(I know one former homeschooler who just graduated from an Ivy League school with a double major -- the former homeschoolers we know are all over the place)

I think it's difficult to define who counts as a former homeschooler because very few kids homeschool the whole way through. I'm sure that the fact that my kids didn't attend any sort of formal school until they were 10 and 12 will have a long term impact on them, but the fact that they also had experience with traditional school and alternative school is having it's impact too. It would never be fair to compare them to kids who ONLY homeschooled. Nor, I think, it is the same as kids who started out in school and were later pulled out to homeschool.

And homeschoolers are so different from each other. Lumping unschoolers in the same group as families that use Saxon for math and Abeka for everything is just silly.

People homeschool for such different reasons. For some families, it's because of a philosophical belief of the parents. For many families, it wasn't there first choice and they ended up homeschooling after their local schools failed their children. Sometimes, the schools failed kids because they were so bright and so far ahead, sometimes, because they had LDs and were so far behind. Lumping all these children together to get an average to decide how effective homeschooling really is doesn't make sense.

The only real question a parent has to figure out is of the options they can reasonably make happen this year, which is the best for their child? What are the pros and cons of each options, and how can they minimize the cons of the options they are going with?

In order to do that, there really needs to be more honesty about the cons of homeschooling so that families can avoid those cons. Pretending they don't exist doesn't serve children well.

One other thing -- we were homeschooling 10 years ago and then, just as now, what was available for homeschoolers varied widely from place to place. Where we lived 10 years ago had more for homeschooled kids to do during the day than the place we lived when we stopped homeschooling and the kids started school. I think it's more about location than time.

[ameliabedelia]

In order to do that, there really needs to be more honesty about the cons of homeschooling so that families can avoid those cons. Pretending they don't exist doesn't serve children well.

1)I don't believe there  are "across the board" cons of homeshchooling.   How can there be?  Homeschooling is so different for everyone.  Some kids are in small families, some in large, some do lots of outside activities, classes, sports, coops and some don't  Some families live on areas with huge homeschooling networks and others don't..  Some kids have strict schooling with tests and deadlines and others don't. There are definitely cons and disadvantages for certain people/kids/families, but they don't apply to everyone across the board.  Maybe lack of group work is a con for child A since they would love that, but not for child B who hates that.  Maybe isolation is a con for child C, but not for child D who has a large family and many homeschooled friends.   There are only cons for a specific child in a specific situation.  Each family needs to look at their own unique children and unique situation and see what the pros and cons are for that child/situation/family.  You can talk about certain pitfalls that might happen or certain difficulties that might arise that you need to be on the lookout for but those don't apply across the board to everyone. 

2)I think many homeschoolers are reluctant to discuss the difficulties of homeschooling because it seems like EVERYTHING (both good and bad) a homeschooled child does is due to homeschooling.  Even in this thread about the "underachievers".   Yes, there are some homeschoolers who don't graduate from college.   There are also lots of schooled kids who are "underachievers" and don't graduate from college.  If a homeschooled child is a genius and wins the national spelling bee..it's because of homeschooling.  If a child can't read at the age of 10, it's because of homeschooling.  If they are socially awkward, it's because of homeschooling.  If they have good social skills, it is because of homeschooling.    If they achieve great things, it's due to homeschooling.  If they achieve nothing, it's due to homeschooling.   If they know their multiplication tables at the age or 5, it's due to homeschooling.  If they still don't know their multiplication tables at the age or 12, it's due to homeschooling. There are schooled kids and homeschooled kids who fit every category...overachievers, underachievers, average people, lazy, hard-working, smart, not as smart,  charismatic, socially inept.

Actually I suppose that is one "across the board" con of homeschooling.  The amount of pressure homeschoolers face to succeed.  After all, if a schooled child drops of out of college, no one says "tsk, tsk, tsk, it's because he went to school".  But, if a homeschooled child drops out of college, homeschooling is to blame, "it's because he didn't learn to handle deadlines, or to handle institutionalized learning".  While, even if that child had gone to school, they still might have dropped out. Certainly lots of schooled kids drop out of college, even those with high-achieving parents.  Heck, I know several families where some children are highly "successful" adults while others aren't.  All kids were raised by the same parents, went to the same schools, etc.